CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01564.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01564.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01564.a1

Jan 28, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A 42-year-old married applicant was denied eligibility for a public trust position under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial concerns. The applicant had 12 delinquent debts totaling over $15,000, which raised trustworthiness issues for the government.

While the applicant admitted to six of these debts, insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate financial responsibility or mitigation efforts. Specifically, there was no documentation of credit counseling or a proposed plan to address the outstanding debts.

The Appeal Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant failed to overcome the government's concerns regarding financial trustworthiness. The decision was based on the presence of multiple delinquent debts and the lack of demonstrated efforts to resolve them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations

Key Rule Quoted

“A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she specifically states otherwise.”
— ADP Case No. 08-00826 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2010)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 13, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Disposition on the written record.
Decision dateJan 28, 2015

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Document Efforts to Resolve Debts
Presumption of Evidence Consideration by the Judge

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking eligibility for a public trust position after being denied due to trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F related to financial considerations. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's weighing of the evidence and conclusions reached.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowJohn Grattan Metz, Jr. — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse trustworthiness determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and that the applicant's arguments did not demonstrate that the Judge's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
James E. Moody

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: A Judge is presumed to have considered all of the evidence. The Appeal Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence is not enough to show that the Judge mis-weighed the evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 14-01564.a1 DATE: 01/28/2015 DATE: January 28, 2015 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for a Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 14-01564

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. On June 13, 2014, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a disposition on the written record. On November 20, 2014, after the close of the record, Administrative Judge John Grattan Metz, Jr. declined to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse trustworthiness determination is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable trustworthiness determination. The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is 42 years old and is married. She has been continuously employed since 2003. The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits substantiate, 12 delinquent debts totaling over $15,000. Applicant admits six debts for nearly $15,000. Six disputed debts total $471. Applicant attributes her debts to her husband’s surgery and subsequent disability. Applicant claimed, without corroboration, to be making monthly payments on four of her debts. She provided no budget or personal financial statement indicating her family’s financial situation. She has not documented any credit or financial counseling. She provided no work or character references. The Judge reached the following conclusions: The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. While some of Applicant’s financial difficulties may be reasonably attributable to her husband’s surgery and subsequent disability, she has not provided a chronology that establishes that claim and she submitted insufficient information to determine she acted responsibly under the circumstances. She documented little efforts to resolve her debts, and did not provide a proposed plan to address them. In addition, there is no evidence that she has sought credit counseling or otherwise brought the problem under control. There is little evidence of any good-faith effort to satisfy the debts listed in the SOR. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant will put her financial problems behind her. Guideline F is concluded against Applicant. Applicant asserts that she is not disputing the facts of the case, but that she and her husband are trying their best to get their finances back on track. She indicates that they have disputed a number of small debts on their credit report and that these have been removed from the report. The Board construes this argument as an assertion that the Judge did not properly consider Applicant’s evidence in mitigation. Applicant’s assertions do not establish error on the part of the Judge. Applicant’s assertion that disputed debts have been removed from her credit report is not established by the record below. The Board cannot consider new evidence on appeal. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless he or she specifically states otherwise. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-00826 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 19, 2010). Applicant has not overcome the presumption. The Judge’s ultimate conclusion that the mitigating evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the government’s concern over Applicant’s eligibility for a position of trust is sustainable. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 09-04275 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 18, 2011). A party’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 10-01100 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 13, 2011). The Board does not review a case de novo. The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007). After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).

ORDER

The decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board